DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY

DHS’s Efforts to Improve 

Employee Morale and Fill 

Senior Leadership 

Vacancies

Statement of David C. Maurer, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Homeland 

Security, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EST

Thursday, December 12, 2013

GAO-14-228T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-228T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Homeland Security, 

House of Representatives

December 2013

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

DHS’s Efforts to Improve Employee Morale and Fill 

Senior Leadership Vacancies

Why GAO Did This Study

DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level 

department in the federal government, 

with more than 240,000 employees 

situated throughout the nation. 

Employees engage in a broad range of 

jobs to support its missions, including 

aviation and border security, 

emergency response, cybersecurity, 

and critical infrastructure protection, 

among others. Since it began 

operations in 2003, DHS has faced 

challenges in implementing human 

capital functions, and its employees 

have reported having low job 

satisfaction. In addition, Congress has

raised questions about DHS’s ability to 

hire and retain senior executives. 

This testimony addresses (1) how 

DHS’s employees’ workforce 

satisfaction compares with that of other 

federal government employees and the 

extent to which DHS is taking steps to 

improve employee morale, and (2) 

vacancies in DHS senior leadership 

positions. This statement is based on 

products GAO issued in February 2012 

and September 2012 and selected 

updates conducted in December 2013. 

GAO analyzed FEVS results and DHS 

vacancy data for fiscal years 2012 and 

2013 and interviewed DHS officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO has made recommendations in 

prior reports for DHS to strengthen its 

analysis of low employee morale, and 

identify clear and measurable metrics 

for action plan success. DHS 

concurred with these 

recommendations and has reported 

actions under way to address them.

GAO provided a copy of new 

information in this statement to DHS 

for review. DHS confirmed the 

accuracy of this information.

What GAO Found

In September 2012, GAO reported that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 

employees identified having lower average morale than the average for the rest 

of the federal government, but morale varied across components. Specifically, 

GAO found that, according to the Office of Personnel Management’s 2011 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), DHS employees had 4.5 

percentage points lower job satisfaction and 7.0 percentage point lower 

engagement—the extent to which employees are immersed in their work and 

spending extra effort on job performance. Several components with lower 

morale, such as the Transportation Security Administration, made up a 

substantial share of FEVS respondents at DHS and accounted for a significant 

portion of the overall difference between the department and other agencies. In 

September 2012, GAO recommended that DHS take action to better determine 

the root cause of low employee morale, and where absent, add benchmarking 

against similar organizations, among other things. Since September 2012, DHS 

has taken a number of actions intended to improve employee morale, such as 

directing component human capital officials to reevaluate their action plans to 

ensure that metrics of success are clear and measurable. In December 2013, 

GAO found that DHS has actions underway to address GAO’s recommendations 

but DHS has not fully implemented them. It will be important to do so, as DHS 

employee job satisfaction declined in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 FEVS results. 

Specifically, 2013 FEVS data show that DHS employee satisfaction decreased 7 

percentage points since 2011, which is more than the government-wide decrease 

of 4 percentage points over the same time period. As a result, the gap between 

average DHS employee satisfaction and the government-wide average widened 

to 7 percentage points. DHS has also consistently scored lower than the 

government-wide average on the FEVS Leadership and Knowledge 

Management index, which indicates the extent to which employees hold their 

leadership in high regard. Since 2011, DHS’s scores for this index have 

decreased 5 percentage points, widening the gap between the DHS average and 

the government-wide average to 9 percentage points.

In February 2012, GAO reported that DHS Senior Executive Service (SES) 

vacancy rates, while reaching a peak of 25 percent in 2006, had generally 

declined, reaching 10 percent at the end of fiscal year 2011. GAO also reported 

that component officials identified a number of factors that may have contributed 

to component SES vacancy rates during that time period, including increases in 

SES allocations, events like presidential transitions, and organizational factors 

such as reorganizations. To help reduce SES vacancy rates, DHS has (1) 

implemented a simplified pilot hiring process aimed at attracting additional 

qualified applicants and planned to expand the method for all SES, and (2) 

implemented a centralized SES candidate development program aimed at 

providing a consistent approach to leadership training. As of December 2013, 

DHS had made the pilot process available to all components, but had not yet 

performed analysis of these efforts’ effectiveness at reducing SES vacancy rates 

which, according to DHS data, have remained relatively steady since GAO’s 

February 2012 report—11 percent at the end of fiscal year 2013. View GAO-14-228T. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov
 

Page 1 GAO-14-228T 

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 

Committee:

I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our work on morale and senior 

leadership vacancy rates at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level department in the federal 

government, employing more than 240,000 staff in a broad range of jobs, 

including aviation and border security, emergency response, 

cybersecurity, and critical infrastructure protection. The DHS workforce is 

situated throughout the nation, carrying out activities in support of DHS’s 

missions to (1) prevent terrorism and enhance security, (2) secure and 

manage the nation’s borders, (3) enforce and administer immigration 

laws, (4) safeguard and secure cyberspace, and (5) ensure resilience to 

disasters.

Since it began operations in 2003, DHS has faced challenges in 

implementing its human capital functions, and federal surveys have 

consistently found that DHS employees are less satisfied with their jobs 

than the government-wide average of federal employees. For example, 

DHS’s scores on the 2012 and 2013 Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)—a tool that 

measures employees’ perceptions of whether and to what extent 

conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their 

agency—and the Partnership for Public Service’s 2012 rankings of the 

Best Places to Work in the Federal Government, were lower than 

government-wide averages. For example, DHS ranked 36th of the 37 

agencies that participated in the 2013 FEVS when it came to both the 

Leadership and Knowledge Management Index, which indicates the 

extent employees hold their leadership in high regard, both overall and on 

specific facets of leadership, and the Job Satisfaction Index, which 

indicates the extent employees are satisfied with their jobs and various 

aspects thereof. In particular, DHS’s percentage of positive responses for 

the Leadership and Knowledge Management Index was 9 percentage 

points below the government-wide average and 7 percentage points 

below the government-wide average for the Job Satisfaction Index.1

 

1

In the 2013 FEVS, 50 percent of DHS’s employees gave positive responses on the 

Leadership and Knowledge Management Index whereas 59 percent of employees 

government-wide gave positive responses. Similarly, 57 percent of DHS employees gave 

positive responses on the Job Satisfaction Index, compared with the government-wide 

average of 64 percent.

We 
 

Page 2 GAO-14-228T 

have previously reported that successful organizations empower and 

involve their employees to gain insights about operations from a frontline 

perspective, increase their understanding and acceptance of 

organizational goals and objectives, and improve motivation and morale.2

In addition, Congress has raised questions about DHS’s ability to hire and 

retain senior executives. For example, a May 2013 report from the House 

Committee on Appropriations raised concerns about the number of 

vacant senior leadership positions at DHS.3 DHS has also, in its human 

capital strategic plan, reported on facing challenges in recruiting and 

hiring qualified individuals to fill vacancies at the senior executive level. 

As we reported in March 2003, high-performing organizations understand 

that they need senior leaders who are accountable for results, drive 

continuous improvement, and stimulate and support efforts to integrate 

human capital approaches with organizational goals and related 

transformation.4

Within DHS, the Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer (OCHCO) is 

responsible for implementing policies and programs to recruit, hire, train, 

and retain DHS’s workforce. As the department-wide unit responsible for 

human capital issues within DHS, OCHCO also provides guidance and 

oversight related to morale issues to the DHS components. In addition, 

OCHCO provides OPM with a DHS-wide action plan every other year and 

provides a survey analysis and action planning tool to components that 

they are to use in response to FEVS results to develop action plans for 

improving employees’ positive scores.

My testimony today focuses on key findings of our prior work related to 

morale and leadership vacancies at DHS, and addresses (1) how DHS’s 

employees’ workforce satisfaction compares with that of other federal 

government employees and the extent to which DHS is taking steps to 

improve employee morale, and (2) vacancies in DHS senior leadership 

 

2

GAO, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-03-120 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003). 

3

See H.R. Rep. No. 113-91, at 14-15 (May 29, 2013) (Dep’t of Homeland Security 

Appropriations Bill, 2014, H.R. 2217, 113th Cong. (2d Sess. 2013).

4

GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 

2003).
 

Page 3 GAO-14-228T 

positions. This statement is based on our February 2012 and September 

2012 reports and selected updates conducted in December 2013 related 

to DHS efforts to address recommendations we made in our prior work.5

For our February 2012 and September 2012 reports, among other 

methodologies, we analyzed survey evaluations for the 2011 FEVS, 

reviewed senior leadership vacancy and attrition information for DHS and 

selected DHS components, and interviewed DHS officials. We further 

reviewed DHS and component 2011 action planning documents from 

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Transportation 

Security Administration (TSA), the Coast Guard, and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP). To determine Senior Executive Service (SES) 

vacancy rates from fiscal years 2006 through 2011, we analyzed 

departmental and component information on senior-level allocations from 

OPM and onboard data by pay period from the National Finance Center. 

More detailed information on the scope and methodology appears in our 

February 2012 and September 2012 reports. For the selected updates, 

we analyzed results for the 2012 and 2013 FEVS and DHS leadership 

vacancy data, and interviewed agency officials on the reliability of these 

data and DHS’s progress in implementing our recommendations. We 

provided information in this statement to DHS for review to ensure its 

accuracy. The department provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated, as appropriate. We conducted the work on which this 

statement is based in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

5

GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Taking Further Action to Better Determine 

Causes of Morale Problems Would Assist in Targeting Action Plans, GAO-12-940 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2012) and DHS Human Capital: Senior Leadership Vacancy 

Rates Generally Declined, but Components’ Rates Varied, GAO-12-264 (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb, 10, 2012).
 

Page 4 GAO-14-228T 

In September 2012, we found that DHS employees reported having lower 

average morale than the average for the rest of the federal government, 

but morale varied across components and employee groups within the 

department.6 Specifically, we found that DHS employees as a whole 

reported lower satisfaction and engagement—the extent to which 

employees are immersed in their work and spending extra effort on job 

performance—than the rest of the federal government according to 

several measures. In particular, the 2011 FEVS showed that DHS 

employees had 4.5 percentage points lower job satisfaction and 7.0 

percentage points lower engagement. Although DHS employees 

generally reported improvements in Job Satisfaction Index levels from 

2006 to 2011 that narrowed the gap between DHS and the government 

average, employees continued to indicate less satisfaction than the 

government-wide average.7 For example, DHS employees reported 

satisfaction increased by 5 percentage points, from 59 percent in 2006 to 

64 percent in 2011, but scores in both years were below the governmentwide averages of 66 percent and 68 percent, respectively. As we reported 

in September 2012, the Partnership for Public Service analysis of FEVS 

data also indicated consistent levels of low employee satisfaction for DHS

relative to those of other federal agencies. As with DHS’s 2011 ranking, 

31st of 33 large federal agencies, the Partnership for Public Service 

ranked DHS 28th of 32 in 2010, 28th of 30 in 2009, and 29th of 30 in 

2007 in the Best Places to Work ranking on overall scores for employee 

satisfaction and commitment.8

As we reported in September 2012, our analyses of 2011 FEVS results 

further indicated that average DHS-wide employee satisfaction and 

engagement scores were consistently lower when compared with 

average non-DHS employee scores in the same demographic groups, 

including supervisory status, pay, and agency tenure groups. For 

example, within most pay categories, DHS employees reported lower 

 

6

GAO-12-940. 

7

Two thousand six is the first year in which Job Satisfaction Index data were made 

available and can be compared between DHS and the rest of the federal government. 

8

Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for the Study of Public Policy 

Implementation at the American University School of Public Affairs, The Best Places to 

Work in the Federal Government. The Partnership for Public Service’s ranking cited here 

is composed of rankings of large agencies, defined as agencies with more than 2,000 fulltime permanent employees. The Partnership for Public Service did not publish Best 

Places to Work rankings in 2008.

Fully Implementing 

GAO’s Prior 

Recommendations for 

Better Determining 

Causes of Morale 

Problems Would 

Assist in Targeting 

Action Plans
 

Page 5 GAO-14-228T 

satisfaction and engagement than non-DHS employees in the same pay 

groups. In addition, we reported that DHS was not more likely than other 

agencies to employ the types of staff who tended to have lower morale 

across all agencies. Instead, employees in the various groups we 

analyzed had lower morale at DHS than the same types of employees at 

other agencies. We concluded that the gap between DHS and 

government-wide scores may be explained by factors unique to DHS, 

such as management practices and the nature of the agency’s work, or 

by differences among employees we could not analyze.

In September 2012, we also found that levels of satisfaction and 

engagement varied across components, with some components reporting 

scores above the non-DHS averages. For example, employees from CBP 

and the Coast Guard were 1 and 1.5 percentage points more satisfied 

than the rest of the government, respectively, according to the 2011 

FEVS Job Satisfaction Index. We further reported that several 

components with lower morale, such as TSA and ICE, made up a 

substantial share of FEVS respondents at DHS, and accounted for a 

significant portion of the overall difference between the department and 

other agencies. For example, survey respondents representing the 

approximately 55,000 employees at TSA and approximately 20,000 

employees at ICE were on average 11.6 and 7.9 percentage points less 

satisfied than the rest of the government, respectively.9 Job satisfaction 

and engagement varied within components as well. For example, 

employees in TSA’s Federal Security Director staff reported higher 

satisfaction (by 13 percentage points) and engagement (by 14 

percentage points) than TSA’s airport security screeners. Within CBP, 

Border Patrol employees were 8 percentage points more satisfied and 12 

percentage points more engaged than CBP field operations employees.10

 

9

Estimates of job satisfaction have a 95 percent margin of error of no more than plus or 

minus 6.3 percentage points. 

On the basis of our findings we concluded that given this variation across 

and within components, it was imperative that DHS understand and 

address employee morale problems through targeted actions that 

address employees’ underlying concerns.

10All the differences within components discussed here are distinguishable from zero at 

the 0.05 level. 
 

Page 6 GAO-14-228T 

In our September 2012 report, we also found that DHS and the selected 

components had taken steps to determine the root causes of employee 

morale problems and implemented corrective actions, but that the 

department could strengthen its survey analyses and metrics for action 

plan success. To understand morale problems, DHS and selected 

components took steps, such as implementing an exit survey and 

routinely analyzing FEVS results. Components GAO selected for 

review—ICE, TSA, the Coast Guard, and CBP—conducted varying levels 

of analyses regarding the root causes of morale to understand leading 

issues that may relate to morale. DHS and the selected components 

planned actions to improve FEVS scores based on analyses of survey 

results, but we found that these efforts could be enhanced. Specifically, 

2011 DHS-wide survey analyses did not include evaluations of

demographic group differences on morale-related issues, the Coast 

Guard did not perform benchmarking analyses, and it was not evident 

from documentation the extent to which DHS and its components used 

root cause analyses in their action planning to address morale problems. 

As we reported in September 2012, without these elements, DHS risked 

not being able to address the underlying concerns of its varied employee 

population. We therefore recommended that DHS’s OCHCO and 

component human capital officials examine their root cause analysis 

efforts and, where absent, add the following: comparisons of 

demographic groups, benchmarking against similar organizations, and 

linkage of root cause findings to action plans.

In addition, in September 2012, we found that despite having broad 

performance metrics in place to track and assess DHS employee morale 

on an agency-wide level, DHS did not have specific metrics within the 

action plans that were consistently clear and measurable. For example, 

one way the Coast Guard intended to address low-scoring FEVS topics 

was through improving employee training options, which it sought to 

measure by whether it developed e-learning courses for new employees. 

However, we found that this measure lacked key information that would 

make it more clear—namely, the course content or the specific training 

being provided—and did not list quantifiable or other measure values to 

determine when the goal had been reached, such as a target number of 

new employees who would receive training. As a result, we concluded 

that DHS’s ability to assess its efforts to address employee morale 

problems and determine if changes should be made to ensure progress 

toward achieving its goals was limited. To help address this concern, we 

recommended that DHS components establish metrics of success within 

their action plans that are clear and measurable.
 

Page 7 GAO-14-228T 

DHS concurred with our two recommendations and has taken steps since 

September 2012 to address them. However, as of December 2013, DHS 

has not yet fully implemented these recommendations.

• Enhancing root cause analysis: As of December 2013, DHS OCHCO 

had created a checklist for components to consult when creating 

action plans to address employee survey results. The checklist 

includes instructions to clearly identify the root cause associated with 

each action item and to indicate whether the action addresses the root 

cause. In addition, according to DHS OCHCO officials, OCHCO, CBP, 

ICE and TSA completed demographic analysis of the 2012 FEVS 

results, but were not certain of the extent to which other components 

had completed analyses. However, according to these officials, 

difficulties in identifying comparable organizations limited components’ 

benchmarking efforts. For example, while CBP identified a Canadian 

border security organization with which CBP officials intend to 

benchmark employee survey results, other DHS components did not 

find organizations, such as airport security organizations, against 

which to benchmark. OCHCO officials did not elaborate, however, on 

why it was difficult to find organizations against which to benchmark.

We recognize that there can be some challenges associated with 

identifying organizations against which to benchmark. However, we 

continue to believe that DHS components could benefit from doing so 

as, according to the Partnership for Public Service, benchmarking 

agency survey results against those of similar organizations can 

provide a point of reference for improvements. DHS components and 

DHS-wide efforts have not yet fully examined their root cause analysis 

efforts and, where absent, added comparisons of demographic 

groups, benchmarking against similar organizations, and linkage of 

root cause findings to action plans, as we recommended in 

September 2012.

• Establishing metrics of success: OCHCO officials stated that, as of 

December 2013, they had directed component human capital officials 

to reevaluate their action plans to ensure that metrics of success were 

clear and measurable. However, in December 2013 we reviewed the 

2013 action plans produced by the four DHS components we selected 

for our September 2012 report—ICE, CBP, TSA, and the Coast 

Guard—and found that their measures of success did not contain 

clear and measurable targets. Of the 53 measures of success 

reviewed across the four components, 16 were unclear and 35 lacked 
 

Page 8 GAO-14-228T 

measurable targets.11

Despite DHS’s efforts, since publication of our September 2012 report, 

DHS employee morale has declined, and the gap between DHS and 

government-wide scores has widened in key areas. Specifically, FEVS 

fiscal year 2012 and 2013 survey results released since our 2012 report 

indicate that DHS employees continue to report lower average 

satisfaction than the average for the rest of the federal government. For 

example, as shown in figure 1, 2013 FEVS data show that DHS employee 

satisfaction decreased 7 percentage points since 2011, which is more 

than the government-wide decrease of 4 percentage points over that 

same period of time. As a result, DHS employee satisfaction in 2013 is 7 

percentage points lower than the government-wide average, a difference 

not seen since 2006.

For example, one action item, to create a clear 

and compelling direction for ICE, is to be implemented by creating a 

work group consisting of the top six leaders in the agency together 

with the heads of ICE’s policy and public affairs offices to create a 

clear and compelling mission and priorities to drive the agency’s 

efforts. To determine whether ICE succeeds in implementing this 

action item, ICE’s measures of success include: (1) agency creates a 

mission statement and priority that guide employee focus and 

behaviors; (2) ICE’s first several layers of leadership indicate full 

support for the hard choices the direction-setting causes; (3) test 

focus group results; and (4) pulse survey. However, it is not clear, for 

example, what the “test focus group results” and “pulse survey” 

measures of success are measuring, and there are no measurable 

targets against which to assess success. By ensuring that DHS and 

component action plans contain measures of success that are clear 

and include measurable targets, DHS can better position itself to 

determine if its action plans are effective.

 

11In November 2002, we identified nine attributes of successful metrics that allow 

agencies to better determine whether they are meeting their goals while holding agency 

staff accountable for improving performance. Of these nine attributes, we determined 

three—linkage, clarity, and measurable targets—are relevant to our September 2012 

evaluation. The six attributes that we did not evaluate were objectivity, reliability, core 

program activities, balance, government-wide priorities, and limited overlap. We did not 

include these six attributes because they were not relevant to employee morale action 

planning efforts. The two attributes evaluated here are defined as follows: clarity: 

determines whether the performance measures are clearly stated, and measurable target: 

determines whether performance measures have quantifiable, numerical targets or other 

measurable values, where appropriate. See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to 

Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, 

D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
 

Page 9 GAO-14-228T 

Figure 1 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Employee Job Satisfaction Index 

Scores Compared with Government-wide Averages, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, 

and 2013

Note: Data are estimates of the Job Satisfaction Index from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Surveys of federal employees. Because the surveys interviewed a 

sample of employees, the estimates have a margin of sampling error equal to plus or minus 1 

percentage point for the population of all permanent, nonseasonal federal employees. The surveys 

prior to 2012 included these employees if they worked full-time, whereas the 2012 and 2013 surveys 

included part-time employees. Because the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey was not 

administered each year, the Job Satisfaction Index and DHS versus government-wide averages are 

available for 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Moreover, consistent with our reporting in September 2012, morale varied 

across components, as shown in table 1. For example, while the Federal 

Law Enforcement Training Center and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Service scored above the government-wide average with respect to 

employee satisfaction, the TSA and the National Protection and Programs 

Directorate scored below the government-wide average.
 

Page 10 GAO-14-228T 

Table 1: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Component Job Satisfaction and Engagement Scores, 2013, sorted by Job 

Satisfaction Index score

Component

Employee 

Satisfaction Index 

(percentage points)

Difference from 

government-wide 

average (percentage 

points)

Employee 

Engagement 

Index (percentage 

points)

Difference from 

government-wide 

average (percentage 

points)

Federal Law Enforcement Training 

Center 72 8 68 4 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Service 69 5 67 3 

U.S. Coast Guard 66 2 70 6 

Inspector General 65 1 64 0 

U.S. Secret Service 62 -2 62 -2 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 60 -4 57 -7 

Office of the Secretary 59 -5 62 -2 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 58 -6 54 -10

Under Secretary for Management 56 -8 59 -5 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis 56 -8 55 -9 

U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement 54 -10 52 -12

Transportation Security Administration 54 -10 54 -10

National Protection and Programs 

Directorate 54 -10 51 -13

Science and Technology Directorate 52 -12 49 -15

DHS-wide 57 -7 56 -8 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS data.

Note: Estimates are based on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Surveys of federal employees. Because the surveys interviewed a sample of employees, the 

estimates have a margin of sampling error equal to plus or minus 1 percentage point for the 

population of all permanent, nonseasonal federal employees. The surveys prior to 2012 included 

these employees only if they worked full-time, whereas the 2012 and 2013 surveys included part-time 

employees. The estimates in this table apply to smaller subpopulations of employees within DHS, and 

generally will have larger sampling errors than estimates for the entire population targeted by the 

survey. As a result, some of the differences we report between DHS and non-DHS employees may 

not be statistically distinguishable from zero.

In addition, DHS has also consistently scored lower than the governmentwide average on the FEVS Leadership and Knowledge Management 

Index, which indicates the extent to which employees hold their 

leadership in high regard, both overall and on specific facets of 

leadership. For example, the index includes questions such as whether 

leaders generate high levels of motivation and commitment in the 

workforce, and whether employees have a high level of respect for their 

organization’s senior leaders. From fiscal years 2006 through 2013, DHS 
 

Page 11 GAO-14-228T 

scored lower than the government-wide average each year for which 

survey data are available.12

 

12Because the FEVS was not administered each year, the job Leadership and Knowledge 

Management Index and DHS versus government-wide averages are available only for 

2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

While government-wide scores for this index 

have declined 3 percentage points since 2011, DHS’s scores have 

decreased 5 percentage points, widening the gap between DHS and the 

government-wide average to 9 percentage points. See figure 2 for 

additional detail.
 

Page 12 GAO-14-228T 

Figure 2: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Employee Leadership and 

Knowledge Management Index Scores Compared with Government-wide Averages, 

2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013

Note: Estimates are based on the U.S. Office of Personnel Management Federal Employee Viewpoint 

Surveys of federal employees. Because the surveys interviewed a sample of employees, the 

estimates have a margin of sampling error equal to plus or minus 1 percentage point for the 

population of all permanent, non-seasonal federal employees. The surveys prior to 2012 included 

these employees if they worked full-time, whereas the 2012 and 2013 surveys included part-time 

employees. Because the FEVS was not administered each year, the job Leadership and Knowledge 

Management Index and DHS versus government-wide averages are available only for 2006, 2008, 

2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

In December 2013, DHS senior officials provided a recent analysis they 

performed of 2012 FEVS results that indicated DHS low morale issues 

may persist because of employee concerns about senior leadership and 

supervisors, among other things, such as whether their talents are being 

well-used. DHS’s analysis of the 2012 FEVS results identified survey 

questions that correlated most strongly with index measures, such as the 

Job Satisfaction and Employee Engagement indexes. As noted in DHS’s 

analysis, the evaluation assessed the correlations among survey items, 

but did not attempt to identify the root cause for the survey results. For 

example, DHS found that the survey question, “How satisfied are you with 

the policies and practices of your senior leaders?” was more strongly 
 

Page 13 GAO-14-228T 

correlated with the Job Satisfaction Index. However, DHS did not do 

further research to determine the specific senior leader policies and 

practices that affected satisfaction or explain why this effect occurred. 

According to DHS senior officials, on the basis of the results of this 

analysis and the Acting Secretary of Homeland Security’s review of the 

2013 FEVS results, the department plans to launch additional employee 

surveys to probe perspectives on departmental leadership. As we have 

previously reported, given the critical nature of DHS’s mission to protect 

the security and economy of our nation, it is important that DHS 

employees be satisfied with their jobs so that DHS can retain and attract 

the talent required to complete its work. Accordingly, it is important for 

DHS to continue efforts to understand the root causes behind employee 

survey results.

In February 2012, we reported that DHS SES vacancy rates, while 

reaching a peak of 25 percent in 2006, had generally declined since that 

time—from 25 percent in fiscal year 2006 to 10 percent at the end of 

fiscal year 2011, as shown in figure 3.13

 

13GAO-12-264. DHS relies on four types of senior leadership positions to operate and 

oversee nearly every activity in the department: (1) presidential appointments (with or 

without Senate confirmation); (2) SES personnel who carry out managerial, supervisory, 

and policy advisory responsibilities; (3) senior level personnel who provide expertise in 

complex areas that generally do not have a managerial focus; and (4) 

scientific/professional personnel who are specialized professionals who generally have 

fundamental research and development responsibilities. The senior leadership vacancies 

and attrition examined in our February 2012 report focus on SES personnel and do not 

include presidential appointments. 

Senior Leadership 

Vacancy Rates 

Generally Declined, 

but Components’ 

Rates Varied
 

Page 14 GAO-14-228T 

Figure 3: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Senior Executive Service (SES) Vacancy Rates, Fiscal Years 2006 through 

2011

Note: Because of the low number of senior level personnel and scientific/professional positions 

allocated among DHS components, vacancy rate calculations are for SES positions only. At the time 

of our February 2012 report, these positions composed less than 8 percent of DHS’s 853 senior 

leadership position allocations.

Since February 2012, DHS data indicate that SES vacancy percentages 

have remained relatively stable. In particular, according to DHS data, at 
 

Page 15 GAO-14-228T 

the end of fiscal year 2012 the SES vacancy rate was approximately 9 

percent, and approximately 11 percent at the end of fiscal year 2013.14

Although there is no generally agreed-upon standard for acceptable 

vacancy rates, to provide perspective, in our February 2012 report we 

compared DHS’s rates with those of other agencies subject to the Chief 

Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended.15 From fiscal years 

2006 through 2010—the most recent year for which federal-wide 

vacancy-rate data were available at the time of our February 2012 

report—DHS vacancy rates were at times statistically higher than those at 

other CFO Act agencies.16

In February 2012, we reported that component officials identified a 

number of different factors that may have contributed to component SES 

vacancy rates during that time period, including increases in allocations, 

For example, in fiscal year 2010, the DHS 

SES vacancy rate at the end of the year was 17 percent and ranged from 

a low of 8.4 percent to a high of 20.7 percent during the course of the 

year. This compares with an average vacancy rate across other CFO 

agencies of 9.0 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. Further, as we 

reported in February 2012, vacancy rates varied widely across DHS 

components. For example, at the end of fiscal year 2011, 20 percent of 

SES positions at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

and 19.5 percent of SES equivalent position at TSA were vacant, 

compared with 5 percent at the Coast Guard and zero percent at the U.S. 

Secret Service. Vacancy rates at components generally declined from 

2006 through 2011.

 

14The 2006-2011 data that we reported in February 2012 presented vacancy rates by pay 

period as reported by the National Finance Center and OPM. The data for vacancy 

percentages at the end of fiscal years 2012 and 2013 were reported to us by DHS. To 

determine the reliability of the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 data, we interviewed DHS 

officials responsible for maintaining the data. DHS officials stated that they have controls 

in place to ensure the accuracy of these data. For example, officials stated that they 

compare vacancy data in DHS’s database, which is electronically populated by the 

National Finance Center’s database, with personnel data they collect from across the 

department and track manually. When they identify a discrepancy, they research and 

correct it, if necessary. On the basis of controls in place as described by DHS, we 

determined that these data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of illustrating changes 

in vacancy rates since 2011. 

15See 31 U.S.C. § 901 (identifying 24 agencies subject to requirements of the CFO Act). 

As of 2009, CFO Act agencies employed 98 percent of all federal employees. 

16GAO-12-264. 
 

Page 16 GAO-14-228T 

events like presidential transitions, and organizational factors such as 

reorganizations. We also found that in fiscal year 2010, DHS’s senior 

leadership attrition rate was 11.4 percent, and that from fiscal years 2006 

through 2010, the most frequent separation types were retirements and 

resignations.17

In addition, DHS data provided in December 2013 indicate that the 

number of vacant DHS political positions, including positions that do and 

do not require Senate confirmation, doubled from 13 in fiscal year 2012 to 

26 in fiscal year 2013.

DHS’s attrition rates were statistically higher than the 

average of other CFO agencies in 2006, 2007, and 2009, but not 

statistically different in 2008 and 2010. OCHCO officials told us in 

December 2013 that while they no longer identify increases in allocations 

or organizational factors as significant to SES vacancy rates, budgetary 

constraints can present challenges. For example, these officials stated 

that budgetary constraints make it difficult for the department to fund 

allocated positions.

18 From fiscal year 2012 to 2013, the total number 

of filled political positions decreased from 73 to 56.19

DHS has efforts under way to enhance senior leadership training and 

hiring, but it is too early to assess their effectiveness at reducing vacancy 

In addition, some 

political positions were filled temporarily through employees serving in 

“acting” positions. In particular, DHS data provided in December 2013 

indicate that 3 of 13 vacated positions were filled with personnel in acting 

positions at the end of fiscal year 2012 and 10 of 26 positions were filled 

in this manner at the end of fiscal year 2013.

 

17Vacancies are created primarily in two circumstances. First, vacancies are created when 

employees separate from the organization, leaving a position unfilled. Second, vacancies 

are created when positions are created but not yet filled—such as when agencies receive 

additional allocations of senior leadership positions for which employee have yet to be 

hired.

18DHS officials explained that the data they provided represent political positions that have 

been filled in the recent past, but were vacant at the end of fiscal years 2012 and 2013. 

According to these officials, when political positions that are not established by statute are 

vacated, they may be filled by career incumbents, reallocated, or not backfilled.

19According to DHS data, four positions were eliminated between the end of fiscal year 

2012 and the end of fiscal year 2013. According to DHS, these positions were noncareer 

Senior Executive Service positions that were not backfilled. This included one position in 

the Office of General Council, one position in the Office of the Secretary, one position at 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and one position at U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services.
 

Page 17 GAO-14-228T 

rates. In February 2012, we reported that DHS had (1) implemented a 

simplified pilot hiring process aimed at attracting additional qualified 

applicants and planned to expand the method for all SES, and (2) 

implemented a centralized SES candidate development program aimed at 

providing a consistent approach to leadership training. According to DHS 

officials, as of December 2013, the pilot hiring process had been made 

available to all DHS components, but the department had not performed 

analysis to assess the process’ impact on hiring. In addition, officials 

stated that in 2013, the first class of SES candidates had completed the 

candidate development program; however, the program’s impact on 

leadership training could not yet be determined.

Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Thompson, and members of the 

committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you may have at this time.

For questions about this statement, please contact David C. Maurer at 

(202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this statement. Individuals making key contributions to this statement 

include Joseph P. Cruz (Assistant Director), Ben Atwater, Katherine 

Davis, Tracey King, Thomas Lombardi, Taylor Matheson, Jeff Tessin, 

Julia Vieweg, and Yee Wong. Key contributors for the previous work that 

this testimony is based on are listed in each product.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(441198)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.